Final Liberation. Is it just me, or does this suck?
Evil Homer
I've had the game a few nights. I've played through the tutorial
and beaten the first campaign mission. The second is where things go
south. The whole game is based on Morale. When you hit zero, you're done.
Fair enough and true to the mini game. But...
NOWHERE in the manual or Read Me file (which isn't easy to find,
'cause it ain't called that) is Morale and its effects on gameplay
covered. A huge ommission, given Morale dictates victory. Also, there
don't appear to be any mission briefings or objective info sources
available during play. Just pulp the orks, apparently. During the second
scenario, I obliterated the orks, yet my Morale suddenly began to drop
each turn. I ended up LOSING the scenario because of this, even though
the orks were in full rout and I hadn't been fired upon for several
turns! The documentation is HORRIBLE, substituting useless fluff for
important, VITAL gameplay information. If there's a turn limit in a
scenario, wouldn't it be nice to KNOW about it?
I am hugely disappointed in this game. The graphics are outdated,
the video is extremely grainy and poorly transfered (you can see that the
VCR needed tracking adjustment during the opening segment. There are
white "dropouts" visible at the bottom of the screen). Enemies "bounce"
around the screen, leading to a sense of "what was that and where'd it
happen?" Documentation relating to actual gameplay is poor. It's a mess.
People who are praising it are doing so based on already being E40K fans,
but that can't save it from being a dog. Thank God Electronics Boutique
has a return policy...
--
Evil Homer, fed up with paying for unfinished product.
Dares to present alternate opinions to yours. Because, face it, you're
wrong.
Meridian
Evil Homer wrote:
>
> I've had the game a few nights. I've played through the tutorial
> and beaten the first campaign mission. The second is where things go
> south. The whole game is based on Morale. When you hit zero, you're done.
> Fair enough and true to the mini game. But...
> NOWHERE in the manual or Read Me file (which isn't easy to find,
> 'cause it ain't called that) is Morale and its effects on gameplay
> covered. A huge ommission, given Morale dictates victory. Also, there
> don't appear to be any mission briefings or objective info sources
> available during play. Just pulp the orks, apparently. During the second
> scenario, I obliterated the orks, yet my Morale suddenly began to drop
> each turn. I ended up LOSING the scenario because of this, even though
> the orks were in full rout and I hadn't been fired upon for several
> turns! The documentation is HORRIBLE, substituting useless fluff for
> important, VITAL gameplay information. If there's a turn limit in a
> scenario, wouldn't it be nice to KNOW about it?
Almost like someone from GW wrote the rules, eh?
Anyways, the reason you were losing morale points was because the
objectives on the board were Ork-controlled. It's hard to win without
taking the objectives. It is possible, but your artillery has to be
pretty damned lucky.
> I am hugely disappointed in this game. The graphics are outdated,
> the video is extremely grainy and poorly transfered (you can see that the
> VCR needed tracking adjustment during the opening segment. There are
> white "dropouts" visible at the bottom of the screen). Enemies "bounce"
> around the screen, leading to a sense of "what was that and where'd it
> happen?" Documentation relating to actual gameplay is poor. It's a mess.
> People who are praising it are doing so based on already being E40K fans,
> but that can't save it from being a dog. Thank God Electronics Boutique
> has a return policy...
You're right, and, to be honest, I'll be returning my copy. I beat it in
less than a weekend. The final battle is lame, too - not even a gargant.
Just a shitload of tanks. And an Ork air force.
Funny thing is, well, the Orks have an air force in several scenarios -
and there are *no* Hydras available in the game. Not that I could find,
and I looked hard. They're in the manual, sure, but they are NOT in the
game.
--
Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Tim and Mary
Evil Homer wrote:
> It's a mess.
> People who are praising it are doing so based on already being E40K fans,
> but that can't save it from being a dog. Thank God Electronics Boutique
> has a return policy...
That's funny. I mean, REALLY, REALLY funny. I went to EB TODAY to buy
it... and they had NEVER heard of it! "Oh, it must not be coming out
until after January..."
And I told them that people were playing it already on the net...
I got "that look" like they thought I was making it up... then I'm told
"you might want to see where they bought it"... and Evil Homer says "EB
has a return policy"!
hahahahahah!!!! oh, I'm the only one laughing....
Wanna sell yours to me, Homer?
Tim
--
Dark Horse Hobbies: Heartbreaker, Games Workshop, TSR, Reaper,
Ral-Partha, More! Warhammer, Warzone, AD&D, More!
All products sold via internet are 25% off!
---------------------------------------------
"Every man dies, not every man really lives"
Tim
I think you missed part of the manual. It does state that obtaining
victory locations (those spinning coins) has a serious impact on moral (the
numbers between turns). It really makes me want to grab that first
objective fast. I think each one is -50 points per turn. So if you don't
grab one I think the enemy gets your points removed from their negatives.
After 5 missions I can say this is one of the BEST turn based strategy
games I've played in a long time. The FMV is grainy but funny. The Orks
grumbling cracks me up. I love managing my resources and adjusting my
regiments to make more powerful groups. And why is everyone complaining
about the graphics? They are pretty crisp SVGA in an attractive miniatures
style. I don't mean to sound negative towards you, just give it a chance.
If the AI kicks your butt (as it did mine the first few games) then go back
and see what you did wrong. I finished my last mission almost 500 points
over the Orks thanks to some massive artillery :)
-Tim
Evil Homer <Ho...@mrplow.com> wrote in article
<MPG.ee40f345...@news.cyberia.com>...
> I've had the game a few nights. I've played through the tutorial
> and beaten the first campaign mission. The second is where things go
> south. The whole game is based on Morale. When you hit zero, you're done.
> Fair enough and true to the mini game. But...
> NOWHERE in the manual or Read Me file (which isn't easy to find,
> 'cause it ain't called that) is Morale and its effects on gameplay
> covered. A huge ommission, given Morale dictates victory. Also, there
> don't appear to be any mission briefings or objective info sources
> available during play. Just pulp the orks, apparently. During the second
> scenario, I obliterated the orks, yet my Morale suddenly began to drop
> each turn. I ended up LOSING the scenario because of this, even though
> the orks were in full rout and I hadn't been fired upon for several
> turns! The documentation is HORRIBLE, substituting useless fluff for
> important, VITAL gameplay information. If there's a turn limit in a
> scenario, wouldn't it be nice to KNOW about it?
> I am hugely disappointed in this game. The graphics are outdated,
> the video is extremely grainy and poorly transfered (you can see that the
> VCR needed tracking adjustment during the opening segment. There are
> white "dropouts" visible at the bottom of the screen). Enemies "bounce"
> around the screen, leading to a sense of "what was that and where'd it
> happen?" Documentation relating to actual gameplay is poor. It's a mess.
> People who are praising it are doing so based on already being E40K fans,
> but that can't save it from being a dog. Thank God Electronics Boutique
> has a return policy...
>
Evil Homer
In article <65dqe0$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
timan...@worldnet.att.net embarrassed himself at an international level
by blurting out...
> hahahahahah!!!! oh, I'm the only one laughing....
>
> Wanna sell yours to me, Homer?
>
boyz" have a crack at it (I still wasn't sure if I was being a little too
judgemental). We fired it up, several people observed as Brett's morale
started to plummet by 10 points per turn for no apparent reason (same
situation that happened to me. And he had taken exactly ONE casualty AND
claimed an objective) and after mucho discussion we agreed that we really
WANTED to like it, but in its current state it sucks. Back it went.
--
Evil Homer,
Cabe
>> --
>> Evil Homer, fed up with paying for unfinished product.
>> Dares to present alternate opinions to yours. Because, face it, you're
>> wrong.
>>
wow... if that isn't a flame war waiting to happen... kinda
interesting how many of these threads brak down into name calling,
isn't it?
Mark A Shieh
Ho...@mrplow.com (Evil Homer) writes:
> We fired it up, several people observed as Brett's morale
> started to plummet by 10 points per turn for no apparent reason (same
> situation that happened to me. And he had taken exactly ONE casualty AND
Were you being shot at and missed much? That increases the
suppression on your units, and having units that don't want to do
anything lowers your morale, IIRC. Of course, this is just a specific
circumstance, I'm getting the impression that you're not going to like
the game no matter how the behaviour in it is explained.
I'm guessing that Final Liberation has the same problem as the
miniatures games. If you like the small-scale 28mm WH40k game, you
won't necessarily like the 6mm E40k game, though Games Workshop hasn't
gotten this clue yet. The opposite is also true. I can't stand
WH40k, but like both versions of Epic that Final Liberation is based
on.
I also happen to like the graphics, BTW. Exactly how much
detail do you really want to see on a single infantryman? I thought
they were quite acceptable, though hardly anything awe-inspiring. I
figure they're about on the level of MOO2.
Mark
Mark McGann
I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
My general compalints are as follows :
1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
is just all wrong for 40K.
2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
so damned cool!
This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
I don't care for.
-Mark
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Mark McGann mcg...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |
|"If a million people do a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing" - Opus |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian
Or, you could think before typing and realize that is his .sig and has
been for quite a while.
Tekh
Mark McGann wrote in message <65faot$bvk$1...@rs10.tcs.tulane.edu>...
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
>
The game is based on Epic40k, not on 40k so naturally you would not be
controlling individual marines.
> 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
>
True that.
> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
>souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
>I don't care for.
>
Hey, like I said above, FL is Epic40k not 40k, so small skirmishes would be
inappropriate for the game.
Tekh
reply here or to
JY...@yahoo.com
Nightweb
Mark McGann wrote:
>
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
>
Naturarly, the game is based on EPIC 40K, its a whole nother boardgame,
I played both WH40K and EPIC, apart from LOS/MORALE/Unit stats, there
are alot of differences in the rules.
> 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
>
Hmmm, I have to agree with that, the graphics are functional, some units
looks nice though, like the titans.
> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
> souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
> I don't care for.
>
Its a army level war game, and the W40K squad level game is out due next
year, along with expansions for this game, Space Marines VS Chaos, and a
Squat addon. No eldars or tyranids in sight though.. =(
> -Mark
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |Mark McGann mcg...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |
> |"If a million people do a stupid thing it's still a stupid thing" - Opus |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he got 1 outta 2 right.. =)
/Anne - vay...@osu.edu
'Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.'
The Gray Family
Mark McGann wrote:
>
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
So? Why is that a problem? Remember, this is EPIC. Unit level never hindered 1944 (best tank game, IMHO)
> 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
>
> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
> souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
> I don't care for.
X-Com. Nice. YOU try and get Microprose to release a trademark, matey.
--
Please reply to..
Thankyou!
William Abner
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:25:27 -0500, Ho...@mrplow.com (Evil Homer)
spoke that:
: I am hugely disappointed in this game. The graphics are outdated,
:the video is extremely grainy and poorly transfered (you can see that the
:VCR needed tracking adjustment during the opening segment. There are
:white "dropouts" visible at the bottom of the screen). Enemies "bounce"
:around the screen, leading to a sense of "what was that and where'd it
:happen?"
Just a note--
You can toggle the AI to 'fast' or 'watch' so you can see the
movement of the Orks and this fixes the 'bouncing' problem you
mentioned.
cheers
bill
------
William Abner
Editor-in-Chief
The Gaming Nexus
http://www.gamingnexus.com
--
"Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd. Smiling"
Pink_Floyd "Fearless"
William Abner
On 25 Nov 1997 20:00:29 GMT, mcg...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (Mark McGann)
spoke that:
: I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
:
: My general compalints are as follows :
:
: 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
: as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
: is just all wrong for 40K.
I'm not sure what you mean here. This isn't based on 40K..its based on
EPIC 40K, and they are completely different games.
: 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
: in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
: system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
: so damned cool!
Well, the visuals arent state of the art, i'll give you that. Guess
different peoiple are after different things from a strategy game. The
cheers,
Dan Bruns
On 25 Nov 1997, Mark McGann wrote:
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
If I'm not mistaken, Final Liberation was based on the Epic system, which
has larger scale battles, as opposed to 40K's skirmish level games.
If you expected a skirmish game, you're bound to be sorely disappointed.
> 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
Sounds like they failed the entire way 'round. It's too bad, since the
screen shots I saw on their web page were very promising. I guess they
were the exception and not the rule.
> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
> souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
> I don't care for.
Heh. Having a real time Epic-style game (like Red Alert or KKND) would be
delightful. Sure, it wouldn't adhere to the system at all, but is that a
bad thing?
Dan
Mark McGann
In article <65fde7$6e4$1...@usenet11.supernews.com>,
Tekh <te...@infocom.net> wrote:
>
>Mark McGann wrote in message <65faot$bvk$1...@rs10.tcs.tulane.edu>...
>> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
>>souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
>>I don't care for.
>>
>Hey, like I said above, FL is Epic40k not 40k, so small skirmishes would be
>inappropriate for the game.
Ahhh, this distinction was totally lost on me, thanks for clarifying.
Mark A Shieh
mcg...@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (Mark McGann) writes:
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
"40k" is nothing more than a history for a fictional universe.
The miniatures games "Warhammer 40k" and "Epic 40k" (among others) are
set in this universe. The scale in "Epic 40k" is IDENTICAL to the
scale in Final Liberation, and after all, Final Liberation is based on
the rules from the games Space Marine/Titan Legions, and Epic 40k. If
you don't like the scale, that's fine. But people don't whine about,
say, Myth, because it's real-time and you can't stand Myth because all
real-time games are terrible. They should have checked before
spending the money that Myth is a real-time engine if they
categorically hate them.
> 2) The graphics are average at best. Normally this isn't important
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
Actually, the consensus on the Epic list is that E40k is
actually a decent set of wargaming rules that allow a variety of
tactics and strategy, unlike the vast majority of GW products, which
are crappy rules sets with interesting background writing designed to
sell minis. There are better ones out there for much less money, but
E40k isn't bad.
> This game should have been X-Com with the 40K theme and really
> souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
> I don't care for.
X-Com would simply *not* work. It took upwards of 20-30
assault infantryman in close-combat to take down a Titan in the Epic
rules. A single company of troops is 150 troops in the Imperial
Guard. I'm not playing a game where I have to micromanage companies
of troops like this. Handling 12 X-commies was already starting to
get on my nerves, but wasn't bad. In Epic, I couldn't even buy basic
guardsmen in groups of less than 50.
Mark
Meridian
Mark McGann wrote:
>
> I also am disapointed in the game and will be returning it tommorow.
>
> My general compalints are as follows :
>
> 1) It's not unit level. I.e., you don't control individual marines
> as you do in normal 40K. This is my biggest problem, the scale
> is just all wrong for 40K.
>
> in a war game. However, the whole point of 40K is not the combat
> system (which is lackluster at best), but rather that it looks
> so damned cool!
>
> souped up graphics. As it is it's just another squad level war game which
> I don't care for.
Just want to point out that what Homer and I had to say about the game
had nothing to do with these here points...
Evil Homer
In article <AoSlft600...@andrew.cmu.edu>, SHO...@CMU.EDU
> suppression on your units, and having units that don't want to do
> anything lowers your morale, IIRC. Of course, this is just a specific
> circumstance, I'm getting the impression that you're not going to like
> the game no matter how the behaviour in it is explained.
Like I said before, no orks had fired a shot for several turns when
morale started to drop like a rock. They were running away. It would
have been fine had there been some way of knowing of this turn-
limit/modified morale rule (coulda planned the attack time based on it),
but as it stands, there's no reason to expect it to happen that way. And
as also stated before, I really WANTED to like the game, being a tabletop
Epic fan of many, many years. In the tabletop version(s) morale drops
when units break or an objective is taken from you. It doesn't drop
noticably each turn for no apparent reason.
> I'm guessing that Final Liberation has the same problem as the
> miniatures games. If you like the small-scale 28mm WH40k game, you
> won't necessarily like the 6mm E40k game, though Games Workshop hasn't
> gotten this clue yet. The opposite is also true. I can't stand
> WH40k, but like both versions of Epic that Final Liberation is based
> on.
I've played both 40K games (and others set in the 40K universe) since
each was introduced, through all of their revisions. I had reasonable
expectations for this game. They were not met.
> I also happen to like the graphics, BTW. Exactly how much
> detail do you really want to see on a single infantryman?
Ummm... I wanted orks that look orky and not like tiny packs of brightly
colored neon crayons, and I wanted an ork buggy that wasn't less than
half the size of a single ork boy. Y'know. Outrageous stuff like that. I
wanted video that didn't have visible dropouts, and wasn't pixelated into
infinity and coupled with muffled dialogue. I wanted a rulebook that told
me the important rules. I want to find a file called "readme.txt" when
I'm specifically told to refer to one. I'm real unreasonable that way.
I'm not slagging the game based on gameplay, mind you. It had some cool
stuff going on. What I'm pissed at is the poor quality of the product as
a whole. It looks and feels slapped together. It's for Win95, but
doesn't take any advantage of that. Almost ALL of the buttons on the
right-hand interface could have been done as a simple right-click drop
menu when the cursor is positioned on a unit. Instead you must switch
back and forth if you want full-screen view and wish to say, entrench.
When I pay my $50, I expect a certain level of quality. I didn't get it.
I took it back. I've made my OPINION known in the hopes that others can
learn from it.
--
Evil Homer,
Evil Homer
In article <347b1456...@news.flnet.com>, ca...@nospam.flnet.com
>
> >> Evil Homer, fed up with paying for unfinished product.
> >> wrong.
> >>
>
> interesting how many of these threads brak down into name calling,
> isn't it?
>
situation/post. You see any "name calling" in the post? Nope.
And the word you're looking for is "break." "...break down into..."
--
Evil Homer, has no time for people looking to start something.
Garrison LeMasters
I've been tossing around a couple of games for purchase, and finally, without
touching a demo (is there one?) I gave in, and went for FL/Epic 40,000.
Turn-based sci fi strategy! Great!
Not so great. In 1991, this would've been a good game. By current standards,
the graphics are sub-par, muddled and chunky. Sound FX and music are
excellent, when they work: DirectX 5 should be a great asset, but instead
throws another wrench into the system.
On top of it all, gameplay is slow, laborious. 10 seconds, even on high-speed
animation, to get a silly detachment from point a to point b. With no
payoff. It gets exciting when there are a number of units in one area, and
the shooting starts, but the "camera" doesn't follow the action very well, and
it gets confusing.
My humble opinion: find another new release--there's a lot out there.
gl
jason
If you read the readme file, you'd see that they are planning a squad
level game in the future. May be something to look forward to as
well.
Mike
Mark A Shieh <SHO...@CMU.EDU> wrote in article
<AoSlft600...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
> Ho...@mrplow.com (Evil Homer) writes:
> > We fired it up, several people observed as Brett's morale
> > started to plummet by 10 points per turn for no apparent reason (same
> > situation that happened to me. And he had taken exactly ONE casualty
AND
> > claimed an objective)...[snip]
>
> Were you being shot at and missed much? That increases the
> suppression on your units, and having units that don't want to do
> anything lowers your morale, IIRC. Of course, this is just a specific
> circumstance, I'm getting the impression that you're not going to like
> the game no matter how the behaviour in it is explained.
Okay, thanks for the info. I was worried something was wrong with it,
since my points would drop, seemingly more than for the casualties I was
taking. Does morale go up the more territory you control?
Mike
Pax Dickinson
William Abner <wab...@gamingnexus.com> wrote in article
<347b45a3...@nntp.service.ohio-state.edu>...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:25:27 -0500, Ho...@mrplow.com (Evil Homer)
> spoke that:
>
> : I am hugely disappointed in this game. The graphics are outdated,
> :the video is extremely grainy and poorly transfered (you can see that
the
> :VCR needed tracking adjustment during the opening segment. There are
> :white "dropouts" visible at the bottom of the screen). Enemies "bounce"
> :around the screen, leading to a sense of "what was that and where'd it
> :happen?"
>
> Just a note--
> You can toggle the AI to 'fast' or 'watch' so you can see the
> movement of the Orks and this fixes the 'bouncing' problem you
> mentioned.
>
> cheers
> bill
Ugh. I had to get this game because it's based on Warhammer 40K. But,
yuk. As stated repeatedly here, the graphics are kind of lame. It's not
the resolution, they are just poorly drawn. That in itself would not be a
problem. It's just that the game is so amateurish. When you shoot at
someone, the screen can't follow the shot smoothly, it goes to the edge and
*whap* then shows the target. The scrolling of the screen is very jumpy,
not smooth at all.
I can't really put it into words. It just feels like the people who made
it *just didn't care*. The game would have been pretty good, if it had
come out about four years ago. That's about the level it's at. I guess if
some people like it, great for you. I, however, am glad EB has a return
policy.
Oh well, back to Myth.. :)
--
Pax Dickinson
p...@op.net
Go Devils!!
Tom Beliech
Pax Dickinson wrote:
>
> I can't really put it into words. It just feels like the people who made
> it *just didn't care*. The game would have been pretty good, if it had
> come out about four years ago. That's about the level it's at. I guess if
> some people like it, great for you. I, however, am glad EB has a return
> policy.
>
> Oh well, back to Myth.. :)
Something I have to wonder - I remember someone mentioning that
production of the game was interrupted because GW wanted them to change
things because of the rule changes in the Epic system, Notably, the
morale system and the Removal of Knights. Supposedly, the programmers
were set back in their schedule by GW's request. Would, or should, this
have had anything to do with it, or was it just a case of rushing a
product to make the Christmas market?
Tom Beliech
Eric Harding
In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.97112...@roadrunner.digex.net>, Dan Bruns <dbr...@roadrunner.digex.net> wrote:
>Heh. Having a real time Epic-style game (like Red Alert or KKND) would be
>delightful. Sure, it wouldn't adhere to the system at all, but is that a
>bad thing?
Yes. I am sooooo bloody sick of seeing GW's games ruined by being in real
time. Escpecially if they were don Red Alert or KKND style. The
gather-up-the-funky-resources and then build a huge mass of troop style of
most real-time strategy games wore thin about 2 years ago.
Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harding
ome...@oz.net
For a web page you'll think sucks, try http://www.oz.net/~omegas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cagliostro
Evil Homer wrote:
> In article <AoSlft600...@andrew.cmu.edu>, SHO...@CMU.EDU
> embarrassed himself at an international level by blurting out...
> > Were you being shot at and missed much? That increases the
> > suppression on your units, and having units that don't want to do
> > anything lowers your morale, IIRC. Of course, this is just a specific
> > circumstance, I'm getting the impression that you're not going to like
> > the game no matter how the behaviour in it is explained.
>
> Dares to present alternate opinions to yours. Because, face it, you're
> wrong.
Well I can explain some of this from what I have been told by the designer.
Some of your points. The fraggin models had to be changed half way though
production because GW changed the models. ALL of the video was suplied by the
same company that supplied the demo reals to games day. Hollistic Had NO
control over the video , they where handed a disk and told to use it. Add all
this to the delay time it caused and that's why the game play isn't up to
snuff.
Cagliostro
Meridian
Tom Beliech wrote:
> Something I have to wonder - I remember someone mentioning that
> production of the game was interrupted because GW wanted them to change
> things because of the rule changes in the Epic system, Notably, the
> morale system and the Removal of Knights. Supposedly, the programmers
> were set back in their schedule by GW's request. Would, or should, this
> have had anything to do with it, or was it just a case of rushing a
> product to make the Christmas market?
I worked in a software store for three years, Tom. If something comes
out between November 1st and December 21st it was rushed to get it out
before Christmas. About the only company that DOESN'T do that is
Lucasarts.
Dan Bruns
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Eric Harding wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.97112...@roadrunner.digex.net>, Dan Bruns <dbr...@roadrunner.digex.net> wrote:
>
> >Heh. Having a real time Epic-style game (like Red Alert or KKND) would be
> >delightful. Sure, it wouldn't adhere to the system at all, but is that a
> >bad thing?
>
>
> Yes. I am sooooo bloody sick of seeing GW's games ruined by being in real
> time. Escpecially if they were don Red Alert or KKND style. The
> gather-up-the-funky-resources and then build a huge mass of troop style of
> most real-time strategy games wore thin about 2 years ago.
In Your Humble Opinion.
So far the only game I can think of that was done in real time was Shadow
of the Horned Rat, and that was a terrible example of what real time can
do. Everything about the game was clunky, especially the controls...and if
you're considering Space Hulk to be a real-time strategy game, you're
technically right, I suppose, but not completely. Space Hulk, too, is
clunky and difficult to control.
As far as the "Gather up the funky resources" bit goes, you don't
necessarily have to have a real-time game like that. You can start out
with the appropriate number of troops and work with them in a manner
similar to SotHR (but with a better set of controls).
Anyway, just because you think real time strategy is boring doesn't mean
everybody else does.
Kirk Macdonald
Dan Bruns wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Eric Harding wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.97112...@roadrunner.digex.net>, Dan Bruns <dbr...@roadrunner.digex.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Heh. Having a real time Epic-style game (like Red Alert or KKND) would be
> > >delightful. Sure, it wouldn't adhere to the system at all, but is that a
> > >bad thing?
> >
> >
> > Yes. I am sooooo bloody sick of seeing GW's games ruined by being in real
> > time. Escpecially if they were don Red Alert or KKND style. The
> > gather-up-the-funky-resources and then build a huge mass of troop style of
> > most real-time strategy games wore thin about 2 years ago.
>
> In Your Humble Opinion.
Is this really neccesary? He said '"_I_" am so bloody sick...'!
>
> So far the only game I can think of that was done in real time was Shadow
> of the Horned Rat, and that was a terrible example of what real time can
> do. Everything about the game was clunky, especially the controls...and if
> you're considering Space Hulk to be a real-time strategy game, you're
> technically right, I suppose, but not completely. Space Hulk, too, is
> clunky and difficult to control.
>
> As far as the "Gather up the funky resources" bit goes, you don't
> necessarily have to have a real-time game like that. You can start out
> with the appropriate number of troops and work with them in a manner
> similar to SotHR (but with a better set of controls).
>
> Anyway, just because you think real time strategy is boring doesn't mean
> everybody else does.
Are you speaking for "everyone else"? or is this "In Your Humble
Opinion"?
I think (note that I said "I"; wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm
speaking for someone without their consent) that this game might end up
in the bargain bins and be a sleeper like X-COM after the glut of RTS
games gets old. I feel that turn-based games give you a chance to think
about your situation and work out some real tactics.
In My Profoundly Inflated Opinion!
--
Kirk Macdonald
"Woof! Woof! That's my other dog imitation."
-- Oddball
Kelly's Heros
These are my own opinions and do not reflect those of The Boeing Co.
Dan Bruns
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Kirk Macdonald wrote:
> Dan Bruns wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 1997, Eric Harding wrote:
> > > Yes. I am sooooo bloody sick of seeing GW's games ruined by being in real
> > > time. Escpecially if they were don Red Alert or KKND style. The
> > > gather-up-the-funky-resources and then build a huge mass of troop style of
> > > most real-time strategy games wore thin about 2 years ago.
> >
> > In Your Humble Opinion.
>
> Is this really neccesary? He said '"_I_" am so bloody sick...'!
I was referring more towards the second statement about the games wearing
thin. There wasn't any "I" there.
> > Anyway, just because you think real time strategy is boring doesn't mean
> > everybody else does.
>
> Are you speaking for "everyone else"? or is this "In Your Humble
> Opinion"?
Actually, I've appointed myself Benevolent Dictator of the Universe. My
Thought Police will be around sometime later this evening to zap your
brains and deliver your color-coded jumpsuits.
> I think (note that I said "I"; wouldn't want anyone to think that I'm
> speaking for someone without their consent) that this game might end up
> in the bargain bins and be a sleeper like X-COM after the glut of RTS
> games gets old. I feel that turn-based games give you a chance to think
> about your situation and work out some real tactics.
RTS games aren't always done very well. SotHR wasn't particularly well
done and Battlemage definately wasn't well done (for some strange reason
this is considered Real Time). KKND and Warcraft II could also have been
done a little better (with a wider variety of infantry and so on).
Turn based games have their advantages, but I still enjoy Real Time
games.
John Secker
In article <65h1ll$4lp$1...@hourglass.oz.net>, Eric Harding <ome...@oz.net>
writes
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.94.97112...@roadrunner.digex.net>, Dan
>Bruns <dbr...@roadrunner.digex.net> wrote:
>
>>Heh. Having a real time Epic-style game (like Red Alert or KKND) would be
>>delightful. Sure, it wouldn't adhere to the system at all, but is that a
>>bad thing?
>
>
>time. Escpecially if they were don Red Alert or KKND style. The
>gather-up-the-funky-resources and then build a huge mass of troop style of
>most real-time strategy games wore thin about 2 years ago.
>
Agreed. The original game of Epic is turn-based, so if they're making a
PC version it seems that turn-based is the place to start. I gave up on
Shadow Of The Horned Rat because I got fed up clicking all over the map
to try to get my troops to do what I wanted. I bought the game because I
wanted to reproduce the experience of playing Warhammer, and it didn't
come close. Real-time is a different genre, for me it is nothing like
the game it is supposed to be emulating. It was the best news I've heard
for a while when I found out this gaem was going to be turn based. Mind
you, I've still not played it - hasn't arrived here in the Olde Worlde
yet.
--
John Secker
Doug Burton
I saw the game at the local Waldensoft store. It really looks good, but
I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. The photos on the back showed
reavers, warhounds, great gargants mixed in combat with lots of ork
battlewagons and a variety of imperial tanks. They even had a thunderhawk
on the screen. It is indeed turn based, at least that's what the box says,
but I'll never be able to tell any more than this. It almost makes me want
to buy an IBM...Almost :)
Doug
In article <YP1+wDA5...@secker.demon.co.uk>, John Secker
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest
profession. I have come to realize it bears a very
close resemblance to the first.
- Attributed to General Alekandr Kerensky
Jeff Stenzel
Doug Burton wrote:
>
> I saw the game at the local Waldensoft store. It really looks good, but
> I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. The photos on the back showed
> reavers, warhounds, great gargants mixed in combat with lots of ork
> battlewagons and a variety of imperial tanks. They even had a thunderhawk
> on the screen. It is indeed turn based, at least that's what the box says,
> but I'll never be able to tell any more than this. It almost makes me want
> to buy an IBM...Almost :)
> Doug
>
I had the oppertunity to play this game last week. Yes it is turn
based, which
is very nice to see. It doesn't play anything like Epic, though, and is
more
like a large scale game of 40k. For example, squads lose troops one man
at a
time, and their relative firepower seems to be affected by the number
left alive.
It has a nice codex showing artwork you should be familiar with while
descrbing
the troop types in detail. It seems to have every ork and imperial unit
in Epic,
except for the really big things like Imperator Titans. One interesting
thing is
that it has slots in the codex for eldar, chaos, and tyrannids, leading
me to
suspect there might be an expansion in the works :). But then again it
was not
my game, so I cannot say anything for certain.
--
Jeff Stenzel
reply to: tzee...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
Dan Bruns
On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Doug Burton wrote:
> I saw the game at the local Waldensoft store. It really looks good, but
> I'm not sure how it's supposed to work. The photos on the back showed
> reavers, warhounds, great gargants mixed in combat with lots of ork
> battlewagons and a variety of imperial tanks. They even had a thunderhawk
> on the screen. It is indeed turn based, at least that's what the box says,
> but I'll never be able to tell any more than this. It almost makes me want
> to buy an IBM...Almost :)
> Doug
Unfortunately, from what I'm hearing about Final Liberation, it might not
be worth it.
The screen shots I've seen are incredibly nice (and that's all that really
matters if you're looking at the back of the box), but the mechanics are
rather clunky and the rulebook isn't very useful.
I don't recall them having a demo available, either, which is rather
unfortunate.
Frog
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:40:37 -0500, Dan Bruns <dbr...@ss4.digex.net>
wrote:
I don't know what game you guys are playing but the copy of Final
Liberation that I own is great. As for the rule book, except for
explaining what each of the buttons do there really is no need for a
rules book. The book was not designed to give the player any
stratagy, that is left for the player to figure out, hence the idea of
a strategy game (Duh!). If you want a game that tells you the
mechanics of everything then you should not be playing any computer
strategy game since most of the mechanics are taken care of for the
player.
The rule book also has a very nice section on the history of the
Imperium of Man and Orks. As well as giving an indepth description of
each of the major chapters of space marines, the break down of ork
types (i.e. Nobz, Mekboyz, ect.)
Not to mention that in the codex it gives the role of each of the
units.
Plus as mentioned in a previous posting they have left the game open
for expansions to include eldar, squats, chaos, tyranids, as well as
other space marine chapters.
All in all, I say that this is one of the best strategy games to come
out in a long time.
Grey Dave
I've found this game to be very enjoyable. It is every thing is said it was.
Epic scale battles in the Warhammer 40,000 future. The AI does a good job of
giving me a challenge. If Holistic does a good job with the patches and
releases the other races then this game is going to be a classic.
I don't even have to paint any of these little figures.
Out numbered? Yes. Out maneuvered? Maybe. Out classed? NEVER!!!
Unknown
Rob
I'd enjoy FL more if I could only get it to run!!
I'm one of those poor guys with the fatal crash bug problem.
Desperate to play FL
Rob
WulfGott
I have been playing the game. It is not great, but it is not bad either. it is
just kinda cool. I mean how often do you get to play a game even remotely close to
40k/epic let alone a EPIC 40K game???
It has some cheese factors of course but all in all it is not to bad. the only
problem I have with it is it seems a little unfinished. a lot of units are talked
about, but not there (waiting for the expansions). but more specifically the "Call
airstrike" button. either I am doing something TOTALLY wrong. or it has no use
what soever....
I would like to be able to buy assualt, and devestator squads of marines as well
in the game.
Meridian
WulfGott wrote:
>
> I have been playing the game. It is not great, but it is not bad either. it is
> just kinda cool. I mean how often do you get to play a game even remotely close to
> 40k/epic let alone a EPIC 40K game???
>
> It has some cheese factors of course but all in all it is not to bad. the only
> problem I have with it is it seems a little unfinished. a lot of units are talked
> about, but not there (waiting for the expansions). but more specifically the "Call
> airstrike" button. either I am doing something TOTALLY wrong. or it has no use
> what soever....
>
> I would like to be able to buy assualt, and devestator squads of marines as well
> in the game.
Well, I've seen lots of people defending this game, but I have to ask -
did anyone ever get to take a Hydra? I had Orkies blowing up my shit
left and right - because I couldn't find the Hydra in any lists.
Nightweb
Uhm, now that he mentions it... anyone else? =P
/Anne - vay...@osu.edu
'Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.'
Eric Harding
In article <348AFEBB...@ix.netcom.com>, WulfGott <Wulf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I have been playing the game. It is not great, but it is not bad either. it is
>just kinda cool. I mean how often do you get to play a game even remotely close
> to
>40k/epic let alone a EPIC 40K game???
>
>It has some cheese factors of course but all in all it is not to bad. the only
>problem I have with it is it seems a little unfinished. a lot of units are
> talked
>about, but not there (waiting for the expansions). but more specifically the
> "Call
>airstrike" button. either I am doing something TOTALLY wrong. or it has no use
>what soever....
You have to buy fighters as part of a detachment for that to work. At the
start of the second turn, you'll be able to use airstrikes.
Eric
Sim Wee Yong
I have just bought the game, and so far find it quite fun. The game
engine seems very similar to that from Steel Panthers, and I would
definitely recommend it as a fun and futuristic version of it!
Does anyone have any idea how to disable to intro movies? And am I the
only one to feel that the movies could be improved? The mission briefing
should be offered in a text form as well as the intelligible garble from
the video.
Also, how is victory achieved? I played the tutorial and the first
mission and in both games before I had decimated the orks, the game said
that they 'had been vindicated'. ?? Huh? Am I missing something in the
game?
Furthermore, the combat resolution is a bit confusing. The manual didn't
really say anything about it, so how does the combat model work? I tried
the quickbattle, and after a few shots, the ork tanks downed my Titan!
Other than those few quirks though, it is a very fun game.
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Nightweb wrote:
}Meridian wrote:
}> WulfGott wrote:
}> > I have been playing the game. It is not great, but it is not bad either. it is
}> > just kinda cool. I mean how often do you get to play a game even remotely close to
}> > 40k/epic let alone a EPIC 40K game???
}> >
}> > It has some cheese factors of course but all in all it is not to bad. the only
}> > problem I have with it is it seems a little unfinished. a lot of units are talked
}> > about, but not there (waiting for the expansions). but more specifically the "Call
}> > airstrike" button. either I am doing something TOTALLY wrong. or it has no use
}> > what soever....
}> >
}> > I would like to be able to buy assualt, and devestator squads of marines as well
}> > in the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of commitment:
think of a high-cholesterol breakfast of eggs and bacon.
the chicken is involved; the pig is committed!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RASPUTINXS
>Does anyone have any idea how to disable to intro movies?
No.
>And am I the
>only one to feel that the movies could be improved?
I like them.
>The mission briefing
>should be offered in a text form as well as the intelligible garble from
>the video.
Agreed.
>Also, how is victory achieved? I played the tutorial and the first
>mission and in both games before I had decimated the orks, the game said
>that they 'had been vindicated'. ?? Huh? Am I missing something in the
>game?
Yes. Look in the upper right hand of the menu, below the overhead map. The blue
numbers are the attackers (usually you), the red is the defenders. Those
numbers represent the morale for the two armies. Holding mission objectives
(the spinning discs), gives penalties against the opposing forces. Losing
troops demoralises those left and this number decreases. When this number hits
zero, the enemy basically flees. No real army fights to the death.
>Furthermore, the combat resolution is a bit confusing. The manual didn't
>really say anything about it, so how does the combat model work? I tried
>the quickbattle, and after a few shots, the ork tanks downed my Titan!
>
>
Yes, it is vague. In any battle, you can right-click on any unit and get info.
On the this includes suppression numbers, shield strength and damage taken (for
Titans).
>Other than those few quirks though, it is a very fun game.
>
>
I'm still having a blast after playing this game almost every night for the
last two weeks.
Rasputin
Al Buniff
>Also, how is victory achieved? I played the tutorial and the first
>mission and in both games before I had decimated the orks, the game said
>that they 'had been vindicated'. ?? Huh? Am I missing something in the
>game?
>
You have to take and hold those little spinning icons. Generally if you
advance past them they will change to your colors. If the units are on
the Orc side and are destroyed then the Orcs get them back.
Grey Dave
>
>You have to buy fighters as part of a detachment for that to work. At the
>start of the second turn, you'll be able to use airstrikes.
>
>
You can also get Hydra's by purchasing an Major from the list and taking all
the unit's assigned to him. The total cost is 1100, but his company is tank
heavy.
P Bowles
>I have been playing the game. It is not great, but it is not bad either. it
>is
>just kinda cool. I mean how often do you get to play a game even remotely
>close to
>40k/epic let alone a EPIC 40K game???
Has anyone seen any magazine reviews for this (available in Britain)? I'm
waiting to see what the general consensus is beforre I decide whether to buy
the game but although it has been out for around a month I have seen no
references to it outside White Dwarf which can of course be ignored by anyone
looking for impartial advice. From what I can tell, the graphics aren't up to
much for all that GW raves about them, seeming about as well-drawn and
two-dimensional as any early '90s arcade game (anyone remember Golden Axe?),
and I'm not sure whether the game follows old or new rules for all that it is
called 'Epic 40,000: Final Liberation'; Mekboy Gargants don't feature in the
current tabletop game. I like both systems (I am one of the few who prefers the
new one) but since I know plenty of people who play Space Marine and very few
who play its successor a computer-based Space Marine with only two sides seems
like a waste of time.
Philip Bowles